9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o ₹ 2,50,000/- each - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue. - Appeal Nos. Ex/75863/2017 & Ex/76112/2017, CO- 75897&76179/2017 - FO/A/75781-75782/2018 - Dated:- 27-3-2018 - SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri S. Mukhopadhyay, Suptd. (A.R) for the Appellant (s) Shri N. K. Choudhary, Advocate for Sl. No. 1 Shri S. P. Siddhanta, Consultant for Sl. No. 2 for the Respondent (s) ORDER Per Shri P. K. Choudhary : The facts of the case in brief are that M/s Jupiter Alloys Steel (India) Ltd. (the assessee) are engaged in the manufacture of Railway Components Like Bogies, Couplers, classifiable under Chapter 86 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During investigation, it was found that (i) M/s Indo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... handra Bajaj, (Respondent No. 2) in his statements stated that he received the direction for fake transaction through Mobile phone and landline by the Director of the assessee. The respondent No. 2 admitted that no material was transacted. Only commercial bills/ invoices and challans were raised. It has been observed that the Respondent No. 1, director of the assessee, masterminded behind the entire play having control over the state of affairs of the company. 4. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the Show Cause Notice has failed to bring about a clear picture of the role played by the Respondent No. 1. It is also observed that the Respondent No. 2 stated in his written submission before the Adjudicating Authority that he is retrac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sumption without properly analyzing the irrefutable evidences on record. (m) That the Commissioner (Appeal-II) did not consider that being the director of the M/s Jupiter Alloys Steel (I) Ltd. the person concern cannot escape responsibility and having key role in this unlawful scheme of misusing the benefit of CENVAT Credit. The entire activity of the Noticee Company ought to be shouldered by the Director. As a Director of the Noticee No. 1 looking after the entire activities of the company having full control over the day-to-day affairs of the company, for which he will be liable to penalty under Rule 26 (2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. That Appellate authority failed to take notice to the fact that Sri Samir Kumar Gupta, Direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epted. 7. The Ld. Counsels cited various case laws which are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In those case laws, the department did not bring any material on record for imposition of personal penalties. In the present appeals, it has already been observed that there are materials against the Respondents for involvement in the fake transactions. However, I find that after considering the facts and circumstances of the case in totality, the quantum of penalties imposed on the Respondents are excessive. 8. In the view of the above discussion, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside. The orders of the Adjudicating Authority are restored subject to that the penalties imposed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
